Is Periodization Outdated and Naive?

In the latest issue of the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, John Kiely has a thought-provoking article on periodization. He begins the article with a review of the concept of planned performance, specifically where it comes from in the automobile industry (think 1911 and then Henry Ford) and how this led to the idea that the output of society could be scientifically planned (i.e. Soviet Union five-year plans). Kiely argues that while this approach improved production in manufacturing, it broken down when applied to government, the military, society, and leadership outside of manufacturing. The author suggests that periodization, as envisioned by Matveyev, is the result of interpreting athletic performance/training data using the worldview of this type of planned performance and may be outdated and naïve.

The author divides this discussion into several parts:
1. Defining periodization: the term periodization is applied any form of training plan, regardless of structure.
2. Discussing the scientific support for it: basically studies “proving” the superiority of periodization compare a training approach that employs variation versus one that doesn’t. For example, subjects in group A will train for 8 weeks doing 3x10x75%. Subjects in group B will spend 3 weeks at 3x12x70%, 3 weeks at 3x10x75%, 2 weeks at 3x8x80%, and 2 weeks at 3x6x85%. In a study like that, group B usually makes better gains. Is it because the study was periodized, or because group B had variety?
3. Variation is necessary for effective training, though this can be overdone.
4. The evidence that the periodization masters offer for their particular approaches is sparse.
5. “Periodization philosophy hinges on the presumption that biological adaptation to future training is largely predictable and follows a determinable pattern” (pg. 244). The author then provides evidence about how this is not the case.
6. Averaged group response to training do not necessarily reflect individual responses. This has to be accounted for in any training process.
7. The training of elite athletes cannot necessarily be generalized to non-elite individuals. By definition, elite athletes are genetic exceptions.

The problem with periodization is that it sounds really good. It’s very logical and makes a lot of sense. When this is the case with things, it should always concern us. Approaching something using the words “best” or “always” should raise red flags. It’s not the formulistic training “system” that develops athletes; it’s a combination of genetics, hard work, environment, luck, and solid coaching.

Kiely, J. (2012). Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7: 242-250.